--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.

I have no expertise, all my education has been authoritative. Yet it is fairly easy to see that ID is nonsense. Anyone arguing pro-ID after several years is clearly not looking at any evidence they do not like.

BTW, I started out as pro-ID. It did not take long to see who had rhetoric and who had evidence. It does not require lots of education/intelligence/training to judge, just a genuine desire to learn.

I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.

I have no expertise, all my education has been authoritative. Yet it is fairly easy to see that ID is nonsense. Anyone arguing pro-ID after several years is clearly not looking at any evidence they do not like.

BTW, I started out as pro-ID. It did not take long to see who had rhetoric and who had evidence. It does not require lots of education/intelligence/training to judge, just a genuine desire to learn.

I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.

PHHHT .................BELIEF IS THAT ADAM & EVE WERE THE FIRST 2 PEOPLE ON EARTH.

ID SUPPORTERS ARE JUST STUPID .....WHICH STRANGELY ENOUGH MEANS/IS THAT THEY CAN'T LEARN, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO.

ID ...IT'S LIKE OBSERVING A FREAK SHOW.

YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG BUT WHAT THE HELL, IF PEOPLE ARE PAYING MONEY TOO SEE IT, THEN THERE'S NO HARM. RIGHT?

GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE OSSIFIED INTO A GRAVEYARD OF TEH SMALL IDEAS OUTSIDE OF SOME CREEPY SMALL TOWN IN TEH CONFEDERACY SHOULDN'T WE GIVE THEM A FINAL SEND OFF......WITH COLLECTABLES?

IF THEY COME BACK YOU'LL GET YOUR GOD BACK, ALL YOUR TITHES, YOUR VIRGINITY AND YOUR PET CAT...JUST THE SAME AS IF YOU PLAYED A COUNTRY AND WESTERN RECORD BACKWARDS

I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.

I think the main problem is that they already believe that God 'did it', and therefore the idea that ID could be advancing unsound arguments just does not compute.

Take Denyse O'Leary; she's your typical ID shill. Denyse already believes life was intelligently designed but she demonstrably has not the crudest understanding of the arguments of Behe or Dembski etc.

And because she does not understand the arguments for ID she does not understand the criticism being levelled against ID. And because she doesn't understand the only interpretation she can put on it is that the criticism levelled against ID arguments must therefore be politically or ideologically motivated.

I also don't think that you need a scientific education to see that ID is vacuous. Prior to Dover the commonest complaint on PT was that the MSM was too much he said-she said when they reported on ID. Once the case started this quickly changed to ridicule and now except for some Fox pundits they don't even bother reporting on it.

I come here for 2 reasons:1. The unintended humour of the UDists and the intended humour of the ATBCers.2. To try to understand their psychology. What goes on in their brains. Why would Gil come onto Liz's site and say that he could prove that evolution was impossible using basic probability not provide the calculation and flounce out using the insults as an excuse.

Now what are the options:1. He is completely unhinged and planned it all ahead of time.2. He thought he had the devastating proof when he made the claim. As this was the first time anybody asked him to provide it, he realised that it was puerile and looked for any excuse to run away from the site.3. His subconcious protecting him from reality led him to think that he actually did provide the proof and he was insulted that everybody on the site weren't instantly converted and flounced out.

I'd be interested in Liz's opinion on she thinks happened. For Gil I tend towards number 3. People like Joe I think tend towards number 2. That is he KNOWS that ID is correct but also know where the evidence lies. Joe thinks that for now he can confuse matters by throwing dung around and maybe one day somebody will find some evidence for ID.

Now what are the options:1. He is completely unhinged and planned it all ahead of time.2. He thought he had the devastating proof when he made the claim. As this was the first time anybody asked him to provide it, he realised that it was puerile and looked for any excuse to run away from the site.3. His subconcious protecting him from reality led him to think that he actually did provide the proof and he was insulted that everybody on the site weren't instantly converted and flounced out.

Can we vote too?

I don't know what to say about Gil. I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen.

Regarding the phenomenon of Joe G, I think these two factors key:

1) He doesn't care about the truth. All that matters is winning the argument.

2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.

I don't know what to say about Gil. I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen.

Which basically says '2' as he must not be conscious of not being able to back up his claims.

1) He doesn't care about the truth. All that matters is winning the argument.

2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.

Right now Lizzie's Guano page has 120 posts.

41 of those are from Joe G.

Next closest is olegt with 11.

'nuff said.

--------------"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Whew! I was just posting a reply when it went down. I thought I broke it.

ETA: Fortunately, I've learned from experience to compose my posts in a text document, and then cut-n-paste into the post edit window.

Edited by sledgehammer on Feb. 26 2012,16:48

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

I can't believe I managed to be so stupid. Or how unfoolproof the thing is!

OK, I need a sysadmin....

Sure. I believe you. NOT!

You are just trying to hide the simple probability calculations that Gil used to show how evolution can't create sophisticated information processing machines!

Damn materialist! *shakes fist*

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

There was a backup up till Saturday, and it should be back online (minus posts since then) in a few hours.

I'll be sorry to have lost all those interesting comments to my Conching posts, but I've got the original backed up, and Gregory probably has his.

Life will go on....

If it helps I have tabs still open with the front page and the Good arguments and straw men thread. They were opened not long before the crash. Nothing else, though. I've copied them to Word - let me know if you want them.

--------------We no longer say: â€śAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ť We now say: â€śAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€ť-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind